Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of the Monarch

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Secret. Smug. Sinister: They've covered up torture, led us into an illegal war and are now placing the Press under state control. It's time to kill off the shadowy establishment mafia that is the Privy Council-
It's time to kill off the shadowy establishment mafia that is the Privy Council | Daily Mail Online

I see both advantages and disadvantages with the Privy Council, but this article is full of errors, and most other journalist in the fail hates Jeremy Corbyn for failing to attend his first Council.

All this would not matter too much if these powers genuinely were in the hands of the Queen, a woman who has been universally trusted and loved during her long and magnificent reign.

But the Queen does not exercise any of her formal powers. She is obliged by Britain’s unwritten constitution to act only on the advice of her prime minister.

If these powers were in the hands of the Queen, then she had been a monarch with political power and the UK had not been a democracy. In my eyes, she had then been a dictator.

 

[Roslyn]

Not quite so strange when you consider that the 600 or so Privy Councillors have already sworn not divulge the information or use it to the detriment of the country's security.

All Mr Corbyn has to do it take the oath or the affirmation and if he doesn't want to kiss hands or kneel, he will have to let the Queen know in advance so she knows what to expect. Presumably he will have no objection to shaking her hand or would that be too deferential?

Indeed, Mr Corbyn does have a strong personal conviction against a hereditary head of state, but that is what we have at the moment here in the UK and he will have to put up with it. Common sense should tell him that we cannot become a republic and so change the constitutional laws and procedures for an hour or so just to make him happier while he takes his oath.

I don't think he has a problem with swearing to keep secrets, but that he does have a problem with swearing allegiance to the Queen. Yes, he's already done that as a member of parliament, but maybe he is baulking at the extra terms of the Privy Councillors' oath. Or maybe he's just fed up with having to swear allegiance to the Queen rather than the country or parliament. Perhaps he's reached that stage some of us reach as we get older and decided that continuing to compromise his beliefs this way is no longer a palatable option.

Though there might be little chance of the UK becoming a republic, the country is still a constitutional monarchy, which means that it is parliament that rules the country, not the monarch. Why, then, need politicians and privy councillors and others have to swear allegiance to the monarch? Why can't they swear allegiance to the country? Saying that Corbyn should suck it up and just swear the oath or make the affirmation to bear true allegiance to an unelected head of state rather than the country belittles his convictions and also implies that people who share his convictions should not be able to have someone in parliament who share their views. If people who refuse to swear allegiance to the monarch can't take a seat in parliament, or be privy councillors, then these important roles are not available to all citizens. Atheists are catered to by being able to make an affirmation, but republicans who do not feel allegiance to the monarch are forced to either make themselves hypocrites by swearing or affirming something that is against their beliefs, or not take their place in parliament or the privy council.

If the main issue is being sworn to secrecy, is signing the Official Secrets Act an option available to Corbyn? Would it be acceptable to him if it were? Perhaps this is a possibility.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Jeremy Corbyn will not have to kneel for the Queen when he is sworn into Privy Council next week - Telegraph

Exclusive: Labour leader may still kiss Her Majesty's hand when he is sworn in as a member of the centuries-old institution at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday

A royal source said: “The Queen is not someone who stands on ceremony, she wants people to feel comfortable but the Privy Council is an important mechanism and that is why it is important that he is there.”

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen is head of the Privy Council and the body advises her as she carries out duties as head of state.

The council also provides administrative support for the leaders of the Commons and Lords and has responsibility for the affairs of 400 institutions, charities and companies incorporated by royal charter.

It has a judicial role as the court of final appeal for UK overseas territories and crown dependencies and for a number of Commonwealth countries.

The body - the oldest form of legislative assembly still functioning in the UK - dates from the time of the Norman kings when the monarch met in private - hence the description Privy - with a group of trusted counsellors who fulfilled the role the cabinet performs today.

Read more: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to be sworn in to Privy Council « Express & Star

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Lobbying is of all times. Even Her Majesty The Queen herself will do lobbying, no matter if it is for the most understandable causes like "Prime Minister, I have concerns about the future of the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home" and already HM's concerns will be enough to send a signal through the machinery of state. That does not say that HM's pleasure is HM's command, this is 2015.... But this simply is lobbying too: use one's position to influence. Since all royals have a position in the highest society it is not so strange they are effective in lobbying and that is also the reason why charities like to have a member of the royal family connected to them.

That is also why people in despair, feeling not heard by the machinery of state and feeling trapped in a Kafka-esque situation write to the Queen: they hope that an evenual request for attention by Her Majesty can bring a solution (which it sometimes indeed does).

In the Netherlands people in a hopeless conflict with a department, or a municipality, or the Tax Revenue, often write to the King. The King's Cabinet will send a letter with the reply that the letter has been received in good order and has been sent to the responsible minister with the request to take the handling for his (her) responsibility and to inform the King. Via this way the letter comes directly to the top of the Department and passes the impenetrable layers of bureaucracy. Sometimes this indeed leads to a solution of long-standing stalemates.

 

[BellaFay]

Can we please get rid of this myth that the Queen does not intervene in party politics & is politically neutral, because she does do so, but unlike her eldest son, she does it behind a smokescreen. E.g.after the general elections in May 2010 she requested that her Private Secretary demand from the political parties that they had to have come to a decision as to who was to form a coalition by the Monday following the election on Thursday – this has been published in diary of one of the politicians involved David Laws. This meant that the Liberal Democrats were never given time to investigate forming a coalition with the Labour Party and that the Conservatives were bound to be the major party in power for the next 5 years. The Queen would already have known that in 2012 her financial grant from the public purse was due for renegotiation and that the Conservative proposal was to ensure her finances were removed from the scrutiny of MPs in Parliament and instead she would be automatically given a percentage of the annual profits of the Crown Estate. Since 2013 this has resulted in the ‘Sovereign’s Grant’ increasing by 20% at a time when all other tax-payer funded civil servants got 0-1% maximum rise. The Sovereign’s Grant supports only the activities of the Queen, her husband and her 3 youngest children, not Prince Charles and his children who are dependent on the Duchy of Cornwall estates only for their support. Therefore, the supposedly ‘politically neutral’ Queen had a hell of a financially vested interest in ensuring that the Conservative party would be the majority party in power in 2012, which she did so by ensuring that the Liberal Democrats negotiations were curtailed by her demands. This is why I prefer Prince Charles’s honest method of putting his opinions across, which are not party political. Everybody knows where he stands on certain issues eg climate change, organic food, local communities being encouraged to have a say in local architecture and if you disagree with him then he accepts that you can disagree with him openly also. As a constitutional monarch of the future he is entitled to warn and advise his ministers, his ability to read confidential documents since the late 1970s helps him to do this more effectively than if he had been kept ignorant of all cabinet activities and documents since then.

Incidentally as a resident of a city whose planning regulations he has supposedly interfered with I can assure you this is rubbish. In Liverpool he has only ever intervened or ensured that some of his architectural charities have offered advice when local communities have requested it and in doing so he has not only helped save historic buildings from destruction but also promoted the best possibly practice in attractive modern architecture that has proved popular on all occasions.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Could you provide solid evidence of anything you've said? I'm quite intrigued.

 

[TheRoyalCourtisane]

I am as intrigued as you as well LumutQueen. But from what I had knowno by being neutral means don't interfering in areas of government such as elections, House of Commons, house of Lords, Municipal government but again the term is juxtaposed with word Head of States/Government which means in my knowledge of government means she is in charge of Affairs of the government and how it functions together with its health. If she as you had said interfere in the coalition maybe cause she fear in the House of Commons not doing its job.

Obviously laws past in Parliament either in the United Kingdom and its 15 realms have to go through proper consultation between Her, Prime Ministers and the realm representatives(Governor-Generals)

 

[cepe]

THis might help re the forming of Governments From the Royal website:

"After a general election, the appointment of a Prime Minister is the prerogative of the Sovereign.

In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

This is normally secured by appointing the leader of the party with an overall majority of seats in the Commons, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise discretion to ensure that her Government is carried on."

In 2010 the situation was that Gordon Brown didn't resign immediately although he didn't have a majority. Cameron was talking to the Liberals; the Liberals were talking to Conservatives and Labour. But the real problem is it was taking a long time - in effect no functioning Government.

Dialogue takes place between the Head of the Cabinet Office and the Queen's representative on these occasions - so the Cabinet Office was keeping her - as Head of State - informed on progress (or lack of it). In all I have read about it, the Head of Cabinet Office (Gus MCDonald at the time) was pressing all parties to sort out either a Coalition or minority Government. Its important to remember that we'd not had a coalition government before except in times of war). The Head of State is entitled to know and ask about timelines.

I don't think there was a plot. This is a woman who accepted, via a number of Governments including Conservative, going 20 years without any increase in Grant.

If there was a plot, it would have been front page news.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Giving a timetable by which she wanted a government formed isn't 'interfering' so much as ensuring that there is actually a functioning government in place. It was announced quite early that she wanted the government to form before the start of the following week so that the government was in place rather than the uncertainty that having no government would entail. Had she not said anything then the wheeling and dealing could have gone on for weeks or even months and that would not have been good for the country. Her detractors will always see such a comment as her interfering rather than seeing it as actually doing her job.

 

[muriel]

THis might help re the forming of Governments From the Royal website:

"After a general election, the appointment of a Prime Minister is the prerogative of the Sovereign.

In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

This is normally secured by appointing the leader of the party with an overall majority of seats in the Commons, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise discretion to ensure that her Government is carried on."

In 2010 the situation was that Gordon Brown didn't resign immediately although he didn't have a majority. Cameron was talking to the Liberals; the Liberals were talking to Conservatives and Labour. But the real problem is it was taking a long time - in effect no functioning Government.

Dialogue takes place between the Head of the Cabinet Office and the Queen's representative on these occasions - so the Cabinet Office was keeping her - as Head of State - informed on progress (or lack of it). In all I have read about it, the Head of Cabinet Office (Gus MCDonald at the time) was pressing all parties to sort out either a Coalition or minority Government. Its important to remember that we'd not had a coalition government before except in times of war). The Head of State is entitled to know and ask about timelines.

I don't think there was a plot. This is a woman who accepted, via a number of Governments including Conservative, going 20 years without any increase in Grant.

If there was a plot, it would have been front page news.

Giving a timetable by which she wanted a government formed isn't 'interfering' so much as ensuring that there is actually a functioning government in place. It was announced quite early that she wanted the government to form before the start of the following week so that the government was in place rather than the uncertainty that having no government would entail. Had she not said anything then the wheeling and dealing could have gone on for weeks or even months and that would not have been good for the country. Her detractors will always see such a comment as her interfering rather than seeing it as actually doing her job.

There was also the backdrop of the Greek sovereign crisis, and a real fear that the pound would suffer materially if the financial markets did not sense a stable government would be formed.

 

[Mbruno]

Before the 2010 election. when it was clear that there would be a hung parliament, there was a great deal of speculation that the Queen might actually have to play a more active role in the formation of the government (akin to what happens in some continental European monarchies). However, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg at the time were adamant about keeping the Queen out of the process and said it explicitly when asked in public about it.

A prime minister remains in office until he/she resigns. Following the election, Gordon Brown didn't immediately resign and tried to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, who thought Labour, as the incumbent government party, had the prerogative to talk to them first. It became immediately apparent though that a Labour-Lib coalition would be impossible and Clegg turned to the Conservatives, his preferred choice for coalition partners as the largest party in the House of Commons. Once Cameron and Clegg reached an agreement and announced it in public, Gordon Brown went to the Queen, advised her to send for Cameron and then submitted his resignation. Shortly after, the Queen appointed Cameron prime minister.

I don't know if the Queen or any of her aides suggested a "deadline" for government formation (a claim which I personally doubt), but that doesn't change the fact The Queen played no active role in the 2010 coalition negotiations and became a part of the process only when the politicians had already sorted out things among themselves and strictly according to the advice she received from the outgoing PM.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

God Save The Queen could be dropped as the national anthem from England's sporting events | Daily Mail Online

REVEALED: MPs 'rude' plan to drop God Save The Queen from all of England's sporting events | UK | News | Daily Express

GOD Save The Queen would be scrapped as the national anthem for the England football team under plans being put forward in Parliament this week.

A cross-party group of MPs is backing a proposal that would see the song replaced by an England-specific anthem for international sporting events, including this year’s Uefa European Championships.

Among those supporting the legislation, which will go before the Commons on Wednesday, are former shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt and Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland.

Although the Government has no official stance on the issue, Prime Minister David Cameron has previously backed calls for an English anthem for the country’s sporting events, with him declaring the hymn Jerusalem as his favourite.

The Honourable Margaret Rhodes said: “We have been happily singing God Save The Queen for ever – I don’t see the need to change it.

“The Queen has always said she’s only there for as long as people want her, but I should think they’d think it’s rather rude.”

Senior Labour MP Toby Perkins, who is sponsoring the Bill, believes it will strengthen people’s English identities.

He said: “I don’t do this out of antipathy for the British national anthem, I am a Christian, and I am not a Republican, but I want to keep God Save the Queen for Britain, and instead introduce a purely English Anthem to be sung in advance of England football and rugby matches and other sporting events.

“The union between the home nations is a dear and precious thing that is under threat. England is a component part of the UK but it is not the same thing as Britain.”

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said: “All four parts of the UK should have their own anthem. Even the Isle of Man has its own anthem.”

Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski added: “It’s high time we celebrated our Englishness more.”

Because it is neither Government legislation nor official Labour policy, such bills have a limited chance but can progress with enough backing.

 

[Roslyn]

For what it's worth, I think it's a great idea. Why shouldn't England have its own national anthem to sing/play at sporting matches against Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland? And save God Save the Queen for events where the team represents the UK as a whole. I don't see anything "rude" about it.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Labour's John McDonnell will not kneel before the Queen when he joins Privy Council - Telegraph

John McDonnell will not kneel before the Queen when he joins the Privy Council, The Daily Telegraph understands.

Labour’s shadow chancellor will instead follow the example of Jeremy Corbyn, who has told how he and the Monarch “shook hands like adults” when he became a member of the council.

Mr McDonnell is to become a member of the Privy Council in early February. He will then be referred to as “Right Honourable” by other MPs in the Commons and will be given briefings on issues of national security.

It came as Mr Corbyn’s reshuffle failed to silence criticism from his frontbench as three shadow cabinet ministers on Sunday publicly indicated that they could quit if he abandons support for the Trident nuclear deterrent.

When Mr Corbyn became a member of the council in November, he was told that he would not have to kneel before the Queen, as is traditional.

One MP who is a member of the Privy Council said that the Labour leadership is now setting a “precedent” of not following tradition and kneeling before the Queen.

“First Jeremy Corbyn refused to bow and now his shadow chancellor is going to do the same thing – it sets a precedent and is not sufficiently respectful,” the MP said.

 

[Roslyn]

Labour's John McDonnell will not kneel before the Queen when he joins Privy Council - Telegraph

Today's "not sufficiently respectful" is tomorrow's "tradition". This is how things change. I think it's good that Mr Corbyn set the precedent.

 

[Rudolph]

Considering he didn't want to belong to the privy council in the first place, I'm not sure a handshake is even a moral victory for Corbyn

 

[Rudolph]

New PM on Wednesday

Alastair Bruce @AlastairBruce_
The Queen will transfer Office of #PrimeMinister from #DavidCameron 2 #TheresaMay on Wednesday. It's a very simple process over 2 audiences

 

[Jacknch]

Yes indeed - our first female Prime Minister in over 25 years, so it's really rather exciting!

 

[Al_bina]

Ms May takes over Prime Minister Cameron in a difficult situation. She, however, appears to lack Baroness Thatcher's charisma and forcefulness.

On a different note, Ms May's article about cover-ups of the child abuse in the British society shocked me.

 

[Muhler]

What happens formally when a new PM takes office?

Is QEII involved before the new PM takes office?

Will Cameron hand in his resignation to QEII? Or to someone else?
I presume he will also see QEII in a kind of farewell audience?
(I see Rudolph has partly answered a part of that question).

In short: What happens in regards to QEII?

 

[Osipi]

This is just my guess but as it stated that its easily done over two audiences, what I imagine will happen is the first audience will be Cameron officially resigning his position with HM. The second one will be with May being asked by HM to officially lead her government. Its a purely ceremonial ritual.

I remember watching in the movie "The Queen" that when HM met Tony Blair, he kind of made a faux pas and the Queen gently reminded him that it was her duty and place to ask him to take on the role in forming her government.

 

[Rudolph]

Right now Teresa May is the leader of the party.

Cameron will meet with The Queen on Wednesday and offer his resignation.

May will meet with The Queen right after, and The Queen will ask her to lead the government.

Two audiences and it's a new PM.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Yes indeed - our first female Prime Minister in over 25 years, so it's really rather exciting!

All eyes will be on the Palace on Wednesday!

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen and Government, from the Royal website

In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Mr Cameron offers his resignation it is normal for him, as the outgoing PM, to advise the Queen of who his successor should be. She operates on the advice of her PM and when one PM resigns it is for that PM to advise her who should take over in that position.

Great news - able to send messages again as one of the people on my trip is an IT expert and has fixed my computer - some glitch when I updated to Windows 10. So I am back in computer land.

As for the CC - see my new post in the Engagements thread.

 

[Rudolph]

To highlight how politicians come and go, but the monarchy endures, Teresa May will be The Queen's thirteenth Prime Minister. Winston Churchill was her first.

 

[wyevale]

Another notch on HMQs sceptre.. Mrs May makes thirteen...

 

[Jacknch]

Wednesday late afternoon/early evening will be interesting to watch, although the change of Prime Minister is, as others have described, quite straightforward.

From what I remember a few years ago when Gordon Brown became the Prime Minister, we will see Mr Cameron leave Number 10 Downing Street and his arrival at the Palace. Afterwards, he will leave the palace and be driven away, probably to his constituency or private home maybe. Then we will see Mrs May arrive at the Palace and after seeing the Queen, she will be driven back to Number 10 Downing Street.

I heard on the Radio that one of most most difficult things that a new Prime Minster experiences is sudden increase in security surrounding them.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

From Telegraph live:

The Queen's role in the handover of power

The formal handover of power from David Cameron to Theresa May will not be complete until the Queen has played her important constitutional role in the process.

As head of state it is the Queen's duty to appoint the prime minister who leads Her Majesty's Government.

Mr Cameron will make the journey to Buckingham Palace on Wednesday to see the monarch and tender his resignation as Prime Minister.

When former prime minister Gordon Brown left office after the 2010 general election, he brought his wife Sarah and their two young sons Fraser and John along for his final meeting with the Queen.

For his last audience with the Queen Mr Cameron may be joined by his wife Samantha as he was for the moment he was confirmed as Prime Minister at the palace in May 2010.

Theresa May will arrive at the palace sometime after Mr Cameron has left for her private audience with the Queen, a momentous moment in her political career and the life of the nation.

She will become the Queen's 13th prime minister when she accepts the monarch's offer to form a new govermnent and following tradition will "kiss hands" with the head of state - in reality shaking hands.

There had been speculation about the whereabouts of the Queen with commentators trying to establish if the monarch was close to Buckingham Palace in a bid to gauge whether Mr Cameron's resignation was imminent.

But the Prime Minister announced from Downing Street he would be resigning on Wednesday after his last Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons.

It is claimed the Queen is at her private Norfolk home of Sandringham where she traditionally spends the Christmas break but also stays at other times of the year.

Buckingham Palace was flying the union flag - and not the royal standard - earlier, indicating the Queen was not in residence.

On Wednesday, before the Prime Minister resigns, the Queen, joined by the Duke of Edinburgh, will visit East Anglian Air Ambulance at Cambridge Airport to officially open the new home of the charity whose pilots include the Duke of Cambridge.

Photo:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...YeUU_H0zBKyvljOo6zlpL_nIe2Fap-5TQsk61Ime8.jpg